Evolution and utility of antiplatelet autoantibody testing in patients with immune thrombocytopenia

Porcelijn, L.; Schmidt, D.E.; Oldert, G.; Hofstede-van Egmond, S.; Kapur, R.; Zwaginga, J.J.; Haas, M. de

doi:doi:10.1016/j.tmrv.2020.09.003

To this day, immune thrombocytopenia (HT) remains a clinical diagnosis made by exclusion of other causes for thrombocytopenia. Reliable detection of platelet autoantibodies would support the clinical diagnosis, but the lack of specificity and sensitivity of the available methods for platelet autoantibody testing limits their value in the diagnostic workup of thrombocytopenia. The introduction of methods for glycoprotein-specific autoantibody detection has improved the specificity of testing and is acceptable for ruling in ITP but not ruling it out as a diagnosis. The sensitivity of these assays varies widely, even between studies using comparable assays. A review of the relevant literature combined with our own laboratory's experience of testing large number of serum and platelet samples makes it clear that this variation can be explained by variations in the characteristics of the tests, including in the glycoprotein-specific monoclonal antibodies, the glycoproteins that are tested...Show moreTo this day, immune thrombocytopenia (HT) remains a clinical diagnosis made by exclusion of other causes for thrombocytopenia. Reliable detection of platelet autoantibodies would support the clinical diagnosis, but the lack of specificity and sensitivity of the available methods for platelet autoantibody testing limits their value in the diagnostic workup of thrombocytopenia. The introduction of methods for glycoprotein-specific autoantibody detection has improved the specificity of testing and is acceptable for ruling in ITP but not ruling it out as a diagnosis. The sensitivity of these assays varies widely, even between studies using comparable assays. A review of the relevant literature combined with our own laboratory's experience of testing large number of serum and platelet samples makes it clear that this variation can be explained by variations in the characteristics of the tests, including in the glycoprotein-specific monoclonal antibodies, the glycoproteins that are tested, the platelet numbers used in the assay and the cutoff levels for positive and negative results, as well as differences in the tested patient populations. In our opinion, further standardization and optimization of the direct autoantibody detection methods to increase sensitivity without compromising specificity seem possible but will still likely be insufficient to distinguish the often very weak specific autoantibody signals from background signals. Further developments of autoantibody detection methods will therefore be necessary to increase sensitivity to a level acceptable to provide laboratory confirmation of a diagnosis of ITP. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.Show less

Leiden University Scholarly Publications

View statistics

Documents

In Collections

Evolution and utility of antiplatelet autoantibody testing in patients with immune thrombocytopenia